Canadian Record Labels Get Indie Record Store Owner To Plead Guilty... For Getting Rare CDs

from the those-darn-pirates? dept

Reader Vincent Clement alerts us to yet another story of a copyright overreach up in Canada, this time involving the owner of a small independent record shop in Ottawa who was charged with copyright infringement and has pleaded guilty, rather than fight it. The details are a bit confusing, but it sounds like the police raided his shop, and took a bunch of CDs, claiming they violated copyright -- but reports suggest that these are mostly legal imports that simply haven't been packaged for sale in Canada. In some cases, the "infringing" CDs were actually CDs of a local band that the store owner himself helped finance. In other words, these are the sorts of CDs you can find in pretty much any independent record store, and are the sorts of things purchased by true fans and collectors who want to own everything they can get. These aren't the types of products that are "pirated" or bought by people looking to avoid supporting a band. It's the opposite. But, the Canadian record labels and police have now "cracked down." Hope this makes the US politicians claiming that Canada is a piracy haven happy.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 3:41pm

    Wow, that's...that's just sad, right there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    GOOD, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 4:39pm

    NOW these poor artists WILL NOT GET HEARD

    awwww no more money for you
    seems its payback time for 6 billion lawsuit
    ya know
    why dont they just refuse to let anyone buy anyhting
    that solves piracy

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    B's Opinion Only (profile), Dec 17th, 2009 @ 4:46pm

    The settlement is for the record store owner to make a $1000 donation to the charity of his choice. EFF, perhaps?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 5:27pm

    The story is very light on facts, sort of hard to find out what he did. However...

    Nolan said he often tracks down rare CDs that are unavailable in North America to satisfy his customers. Often the original copyright holders are dead, he said.

    Basically, imported material that is copyright in Canada, brought it from somewhere else, where the Canadian copyright holder isn't getting paid.

    Someone being dead doesn't make it legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 5:31pm

    Re:

    The quote you posted has no relation to the explanation you gave. Just saying that it's copyrighted in Canada does not make it so.

    Try again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Robert Ring (profile), Dec 17th, 2009 @ 5:36pm

    This is a really crappy situation for the guy, and I understand not wanting to take the time and energy fight the charges, but I can't feel incredibly sorry for him if he's not going to even *try* to stand up for his rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 5:36pm

    Re:

    Dead creators deserve protection! Otherwise no creative acts would emerge if the dead weren't protected.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 5:41pm

    Re: Re:

    No, it means while the rights to the materials in Canada are to one company, they may be to another company in another country. The act of importing the material from another country for resale is a violation of the rights holder in Canada.

    So even if the material is copyright in Canada, the Canadian rights holder isn't getting paid. Thus, it is a bootleg, even if the material itself is perfectly legal.

    He would have needed to contact the Canadian rights holder(s) to get permission and pay whatever fee was appropriate before he could retail the CDs and records.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    TDR, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 5:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And this, AC, is why copyright needs serious revision. It should in no way ever be as convoluted and stretched out of all proportion as it is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 17th, 2009 @ 6:10pm

    Re: Re:

    What incentive will the dead author have now to create new works?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 6:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It isn't being stretched.

    One company has the rights in Canada. Another company has the rights somewhere else. If you bring material from outside and sell it in Canada, the rights holder in Canada isn't getting paid. That isn't stretching.

    Copyright minimalist, are we?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Godric, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 7:08pm

    Here is my dilemma with this situation. If the material is not available in Canada, then what makes it illegal to purchase it from other sources? It is BS for rights holders to refuse to sell within their own regions and wonder why people go elsewhere. Because it will not stop them. All this guy did was act in the best interests of his customers and of course someone had to step in and say that 'your customers are not important, we are. Stop taking care of the customer at our expense'

    Just because you choose to not release something does not mean people do not have the right to it. And don't give me the the copyright company line, because it is not good enough anymore. I'm not going to be held back by some draconian and archaic set of laws only created to further the stifling of creativity and restrict access to works that should have been public domain years ago. My clients are a hell of a lot more important than the artists, or the rights holders, and I will never stray from that.

    I have a friend that is a copyright and IP lawyer. I told him that if he EVER represented RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, BMI, etc. in anything, I would do everything in my power to get him disbarred and ruin his life. Ya, it's that important. Luckily he hates them more than me :) He has been fired 3 times for refusing to work with the entertainment industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Murdoch's #37 fan, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 7:33pm

    Re:

    Individuals could purchase it outside of Canada and bring it in for their own use. The problem is resale without rights. The material may not be currently in production, but the rights are not directly attached to actual current production.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Dec 17th, 2009 @ 7:42pm

    Re: Re:

    which is probably one of the biggest flaws in the whole thing, really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Dec 17th, 2009 @ 7:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "One company has the rights in Canada. Another company has the rights somewhere else. If you bring material from outside and sell it in Canada, the rights holder in Canada isn't getting paid."

    The Canadian rightsholder isn't providing that material, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to import it at a hefty markup. So who is being harmed?

    Free speech minimalist, I presume?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Dec 17th, 2009 @ 8:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That makes no sense. That's like saying you bought your Ford in Mexico, so Ford in the US isn't getting paid for it if you bring it here and then sell it. How do you think that Ford in Mexico got the rights to produce the cars?

    Similarly, the rights holders in other countries paid for the rights to manufacture the CD's, so the artist has already been paid from the sale in the other country. Why should the artist get to double-dip?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Luci, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 8:47pm

    Re: Re:

    There should be no issue with resale. Right of First Sale should NOT be countered by copyright law. In fact, it isn't. There was nothing illegal here, and since he settled out, then what's next?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 9:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The Canadian rightsholder isn't providing that material, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to import it at a hefty markup. So who is being harmed?

    It does, provided the rights holder gives them the right (that is why they are called rights holders). It doesn't matter where the product is sourced, the Canadian rights holder is the only legal source in Canada. They can authorize the import (probably for a fee) but you cannot just bring it in and ignore their rights.

    This is sort of a clear cut case, Mike is trying to frame it differently.

    As for the "Ford" comment below, please understand: you are thinking like it is one big company, this is not. This is an artist who has sold their rights to different companies in different countries. The money doesn't end up back in the same pocket, it ends up in two companies in two different countries. Each is paying more to have exclusive rights.

    Let's say one of those markets is a lower income market, where music CDs are sold for $2 canadian. So rather than pay the $5 or $6 per piece they would have to pay to stock new albums in Canada, the record stores send their buyers to the lower cost country to buy the CDs by the case to bring back to Canada. Suddenly the rights holder in Canada is losing market, and they are facing price competition on their product from another market. They are paying highly for their rights, why should they suddenly lose them?

    It's a pretty basic concept, regardless of how Mike tries to frame it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Dec 17th, 2009 @ 9:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So your argument is that company should be able to have a monopoly and price-fix?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Richard, Dec 17th, 2009 @ 9:55pm

    Re: Re:

    Think of royalties as tax ( seriously the name "royalties" are paid to the king, as is tax ) If you bring 100 cartons of cigarettes across the Mexican border you have to pay tax on those goods even if you paid tax in Mexico. You basically get taxed twice.

    Thats kinda how this works, the guy paid some sleazy hack in Guatemala for his "rights" to this record, and brought it across the border. He now has to pay tax to some sleazy Kanuck. The artist gets squat but the IP lobby cries for him nightly, pleading that art will surly die if the importer doesn't pay up.

    I guess the difference is, tax has exemptions for small quantity like ... a few CDs for example.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    ., Dec 18th, 2009 @ 2:32am

    Great flick name.

    Zombie Creator's attack!

    Monopoly Smack down Now!

    Zombie lawyers slap!

    Bitch Slap lawyers!

    Copyright of Doom!

    Suckers!

    Copyright Tales of the Night!

    Copyrights are Forever!

    ROTFL! Leave it to the copyright defenders to take away one more client.

    And that is why folks you don't need to bother trying to talk about copyright. Just now that it is a monopoly and you can't buy anything, anywhere, you have to buy the local product and if it don't exist you shouldn't buy at all.

    According to some in this thread even if you buy a legitimate copy in distant lands it will be illegal to introduce that into your country because someone whom you never met said so.

    Author dies but copyright is forever LoL

    ps: That is why I have no respect for copyrights, I don't like patents by I can still respect it a little. Copyrights on the other hand I have no respect what so ever for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    The Infringer., Dec 18th, 2009 @ 2:40am

    Give up!

    If we would chase every man, woman and child who infringe on copyright this world would be a wasteland.

    I do it all the time, and I'm a criminal if you ask some copyright maximalists.

    Most of the time I don't even know I'm infringing, and there are times I just don't care.

    It is time to bring copyright in line with social behaviour not commercial interests.

    If creators can make a living that is all good if they can't they shouldn't have the power to make other peoples live miserable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Vincent Clement, Dec 18th, 2009 @ 4:50am

    Re:

    Nothing in the quote states that the material is copyrighted in Canada. You made quite the logical jump to reach that conclusion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Vincent Clement, Dec 18th, 2009 @ 4:58am

    The sad part of all of this is that the CRIA sent in their own agents and instead of working out something with the owner, they notified the police.

    This is a guy who goes the distance to find material for his customers, you know, the die-hard music fans who are willing to spend their hard earned money on rare recordings.

    So what does the CRIA do? Punish that person. Seems that all that CRIA and its Big Brother the RIAA can do is punish their biggest fans. Idiots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    DS, Dec 18th, 2009 @ 5:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How about this answer, Tough Crap.

    The item, which is legal to own in Canada was legally purchased in another country. But the owner somehow loses all rights to resell said legally obtained and legally owned object?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    KevinJ (profile), Dec 18th, 2009 @ 6:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Quoted from the Ottawa Sun:
    "An example is a recording of 1950s singer Gale Storm. Big labels don’t press them but seniors still want to buy them so he orders them from import distributors, Nolan said." (emphasis mine)

    You're saying they should buy from the domestic company, but the domestic company does not offer a domestic version anymore. How exactly do you buy a domestic version if the domestic version doesn't exist?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 18th, 2009 @ 7:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    " Suddenly the rights holder in Canada is losing market, and they are facing price competition on their product from another market. They are paying highly for their rights, why should they suddenly lose them?"

    Since when has canada moved away from a free market system?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    submetropolis (profile), Dec 18th, 2009 @ 7:53am

    When a cd is sold in a second hand store no money is ever seen by the artist. "Used" music stores have been selling vinyl, 8 tracks, cassette and now CD's since the 1940s or earlier? The sale only gets the artists material out there for more to hear. I've only bought a handfull of NEW Cd's in my time on earth. 99% of the time I buy used because it's the same thing for half price. That fact that he was hit with rare LPs and imports makes this even more absurd. They are BUYING it and not "stealing" it from the internet.
    But in all comparisons buying it from a used store is the same as downloading it, the artist never seens a dime.
    All things considered the store owner should get a handout from the RIAA or CRL because internet piracy is hurting his business! (I'm kidding but the point is valid)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 18th, 2009 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Canada is a free market system, but assigned rights are part of a free market. The artist is in a free market, and they can freely sell their rights to anyone.

    It has nothing to do with any limits on a free market, you just aren't looking in the right place to see the market at work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Dec 18th, 2009 @ 8:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Canada is a free market system, but assigned rights are part of a free market.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHA! Oh, dear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Mechwarrior, Dec 19th, 2009 @ 8:15am

    Re:

    Doesn't Canada have First Sale doctrine? If tehse are rare CD's, than in all likelihood they're pre-owned. Are you saying that the copyright holder should be paid again after the first sale?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Mystik, Dec 19th, 2009 @ 11:05am

    Think

    First,

    One would think they would be happy that people are even bothering to try to buy it when they can probably go download it.

    Surprising no one here mentioned that.

    Second,

    Wow, No one knows what this guy was selling but, like the copyright defenders, instantly say it must be illegal! Why because the CRIA said so?

    "...the Canadian rights holder is the only legal source in Canada."

    Wow, okay so all music sold in Canada must be approved by the CRIA? Hmm that sounds fishy to me.

    Let's say we have a J-Pop group called BigButtHo who signs with FreshFish Records in Japan. Now Sony owns FreshFish Records, the music was written by a Japanese guy, and performed by a Japanese Group. If this guy imported their latest CD for a customer where would the harm be in that? No Canadian owns any rights to it?

    If there was another group called 'The Street Corner' who was on the same label and liked a song written by a Canadian songwriter and had that on his CD and it was brought in to Canada, there should still be no issue because the Songwriter got paid for the sale of the CD that was imported when it was sold to the guy in Canada from Japan.

    Now if the CD was available from a distributor in Canada for $12.00 and from Japan at $6.00 then where is the harm in that? The copyright owner still gets paid. It is a Japanese Group after all? The fact that the Canadian division of Sony wishes to get more money for the CD in Canada or to limit it somehow is not a valid reason for that behavior. As someone else said.

    "...that company should be able to have a monopoly and price-fix?"

    Moral,

    All these companies are owned by the Big 4. If you have Sony/BMG Canada and Sony/BMG Japan it is still Sony! If some small Canadian company (Not owned by a Big 4 Label) bought the rights to sell a CD in Canada then was getting screwed by this, that's one thing. But that is not the case.

    Zone based pricing has long been a strategy employed by creating local offshoots of the big 4 (different name, same company) and locking the pricing to that zone via License agreements then if someone tries to get a better price elsewhere oops you don't have the right license.

    This worked flawlessly before the Internet. Which, quite quickly, derailed the zone business model. From then until now they are still trying to apply the zone model to music sales.

    They want you to think it is all about Licenses or Rights, but in effect it is about zones. Keeping the maximum sustainable profits from those zones flowing.

    Bear in mind this is the *only* industry that does this. Not too long ago I went to Europe, I forgot the cable to connect the camera to a computer. So I bought a Orb to extract the photos from the cards. Now when I came home I didn't have to buy a right to use the Orb in the U.S. If they tried to make me do that, I would never buy from that company again. There is competition.

    For years there has been no competition when it comes to music. If you sell records from anyone but us (Big 4) you will never sell our recordings again! The same with Radio etc.

    As has been stated for years the Big 4 don't know how to compete. They have never had to deal with 'Free' and 'Indie'. The more they try to cling to the past the more they will fail.

    Someone might have said this before I don't know. But why not put all the talent the Big 4 have to a better use. Why not evolve into a different way of doing business. Instead of selling music, controlling rights or artists why not shift to consulting. Take a smaller cut of the sales and no copyrights and help all artists to improve. Helping tons of artists instead of the 'chosen few' would have a better benefit than they way it is now. More Choice, More Music and they would still be viable and profitable.

    Oh well just my two cents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This